Morality or Obedience?

[Tassman]

1. There's no substantiated evidence of the supernatural.
C. Therefore, the supernatural doesn't exist.

Argument from ignorance.

Red herring. Show the connection between secular/human development and the idea that moral values based on societal norms leads to absurdity. Hint: you're going to be way off if you don't understand the ethico-philosophical point undergirding the claim. And I've heard the ole' talking point about the UN Human Development Index, and there's other variables you'd need to take into account before you construct your secular castle in the clouds.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-earth-atheismhttps://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ious-societies

[Sparko]

The difference Tassman is you don't have to believe in Supernatural/Leprechauns if you don't find credible evidence for them, but that is not the same as declaring that because there is no evidence that they don't exist. They could exist but you just don't have the evidence, yet.

So reserving your belief is different than declaration as fact based on lack of evidence.

I don't believe in the supernatural because there is no evidence that I find credible
vs.
Therefore the supernatural does not exist.

[carpedm9587]

The difference Tassman is you don't have to believe in Supernatural/Leprechauns if you don't find credible evidence for them, but that is not the same as declaring that because there is no evidence that they don't exist. They could exist but you just don't have the evidence, yet.

So reserving your belief is different than declaration as fact based on lack of evidence.

I don't believe in the supernatural because there is no evidence that I find credible
vs.
Therefore the supernatural does not exist.

So based on this, should we all hold the position "they might exist" for leprechauns, unicorns, vampires, werewolves, faeries, wizards, etc.?

An existential negative claim cannot be proven, AFAIK. But there ARE some things that the lack of evidence for their existence leads us to a justifiable belief that they do not exist. Usually, that is when claims about them defy what we know about the world and how it works. I cannot prove to you that a leprechaun does not exist, but I CAN show you their long history in folklore and mythology, that what they can do defies what we know about "how stuff works," and reasonably conclude, "there are no leprechauns, outside of the human imagination."

Likewise for unicorns, vampires, werewolves, faeries, wizards, gods, etc..

[37818]

So based on this, should we all hold the position "they might exist" for leprechauns, unicorns, vampires, werewolves, faeries, wizards, etc.?

An existential negative claim cannot be proven, AFAIK. But there ARE some things that the lack of evidence for their existence leads us to a justifiable belief that they do not exist. Usually, that is when claims about them defy what we know about the world and how it works. I cannot prove to you that a leprechaun does not exist, but I CAN show you their long history in folklore and mythology, that what they can do defies what we know about "how stuff works," and reasonably conclude, "there are no leprechauns, outside of the human imagination."

Likewise for unicorns, vampires, werewolves, faeries, wizards, gods, etc..

Yep. Fictitious entities. Existence is not fictitious. Space-time how we experience existence.

[Sparko]

...I cannot prove to you that a leprechaun does not exist...

That's what I said.

[carpedm9587]

That's what I said.

You...um...apparently ignored all the rest.

I can tell you, "I believe leprechauns do not exist," and give you my reasons why.

I can also tell you why I believe faeries do not exist.
I can also tell you why I believe werewolves do not exist.
I can also tell you why I believe gods do not exist.

etc.

[Sparko]

You...um...apparently ignored all the rest.

I can tell you, "I believe leprechauns do not exist," and give you my reasons why.

I can also tell you why I believe faeries do not exist.
I can also tell you why I believe werewolves do not exist.
I can also tell you why I believe gods do not exist.

etc.

And I said that believing something does not exist is not the same as declaring as a fact they do not exist.

I don't believe in leprechauns either and see no reason why to believe they do. That doesn't mean I can declare they don't exist as fact. I mean I CAN, and I would probably be right, but there is no way to PROVE IT as fact. It would ultimately be an argument from ignorance. Now if I had evidence of where a person invented the concept of leprechauns, then I could probably prove they don't exist. Just like say, Frodo the hobbit. We know where Frodo was created, in a fictional book by JRR Tolkein, so we can say that Frodo the Hobbit does not exist in reality only in fiction.

[carpedm9587]

And I said that believing something does not exist is not the same as declaring as a fact they do not exist.

I don't believe in leprechauns either and see no reason why to believe they do. That doesn't mean I can declare they don't exist as fact. I mean I CAN, and I would probably be right, but there is no way to PROVE IT as fact. It would ultimately be an argument from ignorance. Now if I had evidence of where a person invented the concept of leprechauns, then I could probably prove they don't exist. Just like say, Frodo the hobbit. We know where Frodo was created, in a fictional book by JRR Tolkein, so we can say that Frodo the Hobbit does not exist in reality only in fiction.

It depends on what you look for as evidence and as proof. The lack of evidence for something is itself evidence. When coupled with the other evidence against it's existence (featured in folklore/myth tales, possessing powers not seen in the physical world, similarity to other mythic creatues, etc.), it rises to the level of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." If people are looking for "absolute proof," then they will forever sit on the "well, we just can't know!" fence. Most of us don't function that way. I am quite comfortable declaring, leprechauns do not exist, unicorns do not exist, faeries do not exist, and gods do not exist.

[Sparko]

It depends on what you look for as evidence and as proof. The lack of evidence for something is itself evidence. When coupled with the other evidence against it's existence (featured in folklore/myth tales, possessing powers not seen in the physical world, similarity to other mythic creatues, etc.), it rises to the level of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." If people are looking for "absolute proof," then they will forever sit on the "well, we just can't know!" fence. Most of us don't function that way. I am quite comfortable declaring, leprechauns do not exist, unicorns do not exist, faeries do not exist, and gods do not exist.

Fine, but when you try to convince me, you are using an argument from silence. That is what Mattballman's point was.

[carpedm9587]

Fine, but when you try to convince me, you are using an argument from silence. That is what Mattballman's point was.

A) It's actually not an argument from silence, when the argument includes silence AND other evidence.
B) I don't set out to convince anyone - believe what you will. In discussions, I focus on explaining what I believe and why (despite repeated accusations otherwise).

[mattbballman31]

This discussion has been had several times. I'm curious to knwo why you think this is so.

Oh, you want to talk now? I thought you thought I was arrogant? Are we over that now? I hope so. Let me know and I'll let you know why I think 'this is so'.

[mattbballman31]

Nope! Thanks for playing, dingbat!


I made the claim that it was absurd, dummy. So, you can't tell me what I meant when I said it was absurd, and the point I was making that undergirded the claim, you clod. Your ability to grasp the logical flow of a conversation is pretty appalling.

This is just such stupid claptrap. No mention of how the quantity of populations are involved. No mention of which religion and why. I mean, seriously. You expect me to seriously think that this supports the idea that morality is based on societal norms? At most, this shows that there's a loosely defined correlation between a multifaceted phenomenon and crime/violence, relative to an as yet unacknowledged variable regarding population statistics, and an as yet unacknowledged variable regarding which religions in which populations and why the creeds of such religions in such populations relative to other as yet unacknowledged sociological factors would lead to greater or lesser degrees of violence/crime.

Again, which religion? What population statistics play into this? Homicide, violent crime, poverty, obesity, child abuse, low education attainment levels, income levels, unemployment, STD's, teen pregnancy are all not Christian values. So, other variables are in play here, as anyone with a little discernment can see. Is it possible that the secular are consistently living by religious values without the foundation? Is it possible that the religious are living by non-religious principles? Are other religious principles in play that would be denounced by Christian values? Simply citing this statistic proves absolutely nothing regarding whether secular attitudes are socially superior to religious attitudes, because the variables left unanswered are crucial to getting an accurate handle on what's going on. So, nice try.

And besides, it's all a red herring because this ignores the ethico-philosophical thrust behind my claim that relativizing moral values to social mores leads to absurdity. Since you have an inability to exercise the epistemic virtue of 'understanding a point view', you grabbed a herring out of your herring bag and stunk up the entire dialectical path.

[Tassman]

The difference Tassman is you don't have to believe in Supernatural/Leprechauns if you don't find credible evidence for them, but that is not the same as declaring that because there is no evidence that they don't exist. They could exist but you just don't have the evidence, yet.

So reserving your belief is different than declaration as fact based on lack of evidence.

I don't believe in the supernatural because there is no evidence that I find credible
vs.
Therefore the supernatural does not exist.

If you read my response very carefully you will note that I didn't "declare" leprechauns don't exist. It is possible that they do. But, for a variety of reasons it is highly improbable that they exist. The same applies to the supernatural.

[mattbballman31]

If you read my response very carefully you will note that I didn't "declare" leprechauns don't exist. It is possible that they do. But, for a variety of reasons it is highly improbable that they exist. The same applies to the supernatural.

What, are you afraid to prove a negative? You know you can do that, right? And what you did for leprechauns you didn't do for theism. It's easy to prove the non-existence of leprechauns!

[Tassman]

I made the claim that it was absurd, dummy. So, you can't tell me what I meant when I said it was absurd, and the point I was making that undergirded the claim, you clod. Your ability to grasp the logical flow of a conversation is pretty appalling.

This is just such stupid claptrap. No mention of how the quantity of populations are involved. No mention of which religion and why. I mean, seriously. You expect me to seriously think that this supports the idea that morality is based on societal norms? At most, this shows that there's a loosely defined correlation between a multifaceted phenomenon and crime/violence, relative to an as yet unacknowledged variable regarding population statistics, and an as yet unacknowledged variable regarding which religions in which populations and why the creeds of such religions in such populations relative to other as yet unacknowledged sociological factors would lead to greater or lesser degrees of violence/crime.

OK. So all YOU need do is show what morality IS based on

Again, which religion? What population statistics play into this? Homicide, violent crime, poverty, obesity, child abuse, low education attainment levels, income levels, unemployment, STD's, teen pregnancy are all not Christian values. So, other variables are in play here, as anyone with a little discernment can see. Is it possible that the secular are consistently living by religious values without the foundation? Is it possible that the religious are living by non-religious principles? Are other religious principles in play that would be denounced by Christian values? Simply citing this statistic proves absolutely nothing regarding whether secular attitudes are socially superior to religious attitudes, because the variables left unanswered are crucial to getting an accurate handle on what's going on. So, nice try.

And besides, it's all a red herring because this ignores the ethico-philosophical thrust behind my claim that relativizing moral values to social mores leads to absurdity. Since you have an inability to exercise the epistemic virtue of 'understanding a point view', you grabbed a herring out of your herring bag and stunk up the entire dialectical path.

The facts speak for themselves regardless of the stinking dialectical path